[OT] Re: (That C++ is slower thing again) Re: the damned GUI - was:[PD] Pd in white on black and OSC

Larry Troxler lt at westnet.com
Mon Nov 24 09:13:19 CET 2003

On Sunday 23 November 2003 22:02, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 07:44:55PM -0500, Larry Troxler wrote:
> > Either a destructor is needed, or it is not.
> Sometimes it is not necessary to call a destructor each time an object is
> deleted; this is where an inline destructor can supposedly help (I'm not a
> C++ programmer, and never read a C++ book). I found this paper on C++
> performance issues: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/perf4.pdf
> Inlining destructors seems tricky and dangerous.

That url is timeing out for me. In any case, we are evidently talking past 

> > What am I missing here?
> Nothing. I now have the impression that well written and optimised C++
> code can be as fast as C, although there must a lot of poorly written C++
> code used to produce bloated softwares, because object oriented
> programming is popular for big projects.

I think you're confusing cause and effect here, and also perhaps confusing 
object oriented programming with the choice of programming language.

Certainly, large projects are more likely to be poorly written and bloated.

And likewise, C++ is probably more likely too be used for larger projects.

And remember, whether someone is using object-oriented design has little to do 
with what programming language they are using - it is very easy to do object 
oriented programming in C. C++ really only adds a bit of syntactic niceties 
to help things out.


More information about the Pd-list mailing list